1

Technical Support Document:
Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis


This document describes resource adequacy and reliability impacts in 2020 for selected
policy scenarios from this proposal, compared to a base case without the policy. As used here,
the term resource adequacy means the provision of adequate generating resources to meet
projected load and generating reserve requirements in each region, while reliability includes the
ability to deliver the resources to the loads, such that the overall power grid remains stable. The
focus of the analysis is on the impact of the policy, in the context of a base case that is assumed
to be adequate and reliable. In this framework, the emphasis is on the incremental changes in the
power system that are projected to occur under the presence of the rule.
1
The EPA uses the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project likely future electricity market conditions with and
without the proposed rule.
Although not the focus of this document, it is important to recognize that this proposal
provides flexibility in the context of state plan development that preserves the ability of
responsible authorities to maintain electric reliability. For example, relevant planning authorities
(such as ISOs and RTOs) may consult with states during the formulation of a state plan. ISOs
and RTOs have also expressed interest in discussing the facilitation of emission control
requirements under multi-state approaches. The flexibility of meeting the state goal over time
also allows short-term variation in CO2 emissions that may occur as certain generators run for
short periods of time to maintain system reliability. While not discussed further here, these facts
further support this document’s demonstration that the implementation of this rule can be
achieved without undermining resource adequacy or reliability.
IPM is a multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S.
electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch,
and emission control strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission,
dispatch, and reliability constraints. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as

1
Both the base and policy cases start from input data on the expected state of the fleet of power plants in 2016
and assume certain planned retirements and additions happen by the end of 2015; the analysis focuses on the
impacts of retirements that are projected by the IPM model in the 2020. See the documentation of the NEEDS data
base at epa.gov/powersectormodeling for information on what retirements and additions are assumed to occur by
the end of 2015.
2

accurately as possible. The EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry
experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis
for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional
information on the assumptions discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and
inputs.2
IPM is specifically designed to ensure generation resource adequacy, either by using
existing resources or through the construction of new resources. IPM addresses reliable delivery
of generation resources for the delivery of electricity between the 64 IPM regions, by setting
limits to the ability to transfer power between regions using the bulk power transmission system.
Within each model region, IPM assumes that adequate transmission capacity exists to deliver any
resources located in, or transferred to, the region. For a more complete presentation of the power
sector impacts of the proposed rule, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Overview
The EPA is proposing emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to address
greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. Specifically,
the EPA is proposing state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the
power sector, as well as guidelines for states to use in developing plans to attain the state-specific
goals. This rule, as proposed, would set in motion actions to lower the carbon intensity of power
generation in the United States. The agency is proposing one option (Option 1) for state-specific
goals and requesting comment on a second option (Option 2).
3
For purposes of this resource
adequacy and reliability assessment, estimates and projections are taken from the Option 1 State
scenario. This option was chosen because it limits compliance choices more than the
corresponding regional option, and is more likely than the regional option to pose challenges to
resource adequacy.
4
The Option 1 Regional scenario results are discussed relative to the results
from the Option 1 State scenario.

2
Detailed information and documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.13), including all the underlying
assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/BaseCasev513.html
3
See Chapter 3 of the RIA for additional detail on the scenarios analyzed.
4
For more detail on the economic impacts, and more discussion of the compliance scenarios, see Chapter 3 of the
RIA for this proposal.
3

Option 1 (State) Policy Scenario
Summary of Changes in Operational Capacity
Total operational capacity is lower in the policy scenario, primarily from reduced need
for existing and new capacity as a result of increases in energy efficiency. These increases in
energy efficiency make possible increases in retirements compared to the base case. Since most
regions currently have capacity above their target reserve margins, most of these retirements are
absorbed by a reduction in excess reserves over time. Operational capacity
5
changes from the
base case in 2020 are summarized below:

Table 1. Operational Capacity Summary in 2020
Base case operational capacity (MW) 1,004,942

Minus Retirements in Policy Case:
(-) Coal -48,996
(-) Oil-Gas Steam -16,131
(-) Combustion Turbine -2,328
(-) Combined Cycle -3,455
Plus New Capacity 36,118

Equals Policy Case Operational Capacity 970,150
6


Since the model must maintain adequate reserves in each region, a portion of the reduced
operational capacity in the policy case is taken from reserves that currently exceed the target
reserve margin and will not be needed in the future. In order to maintain resource adequacy in
each region where existing resources retire, the model relies on this excess reserve reduction,
additions of new capacity, and reduced total resource requirements from increases in energy
efficiency. As the table shows, the reduced resource needs permit lower capacity additions even
though there are substantial increases in retirements. Each of these policy case changes is
discussed further below.

5
Operational capacity is any existing, new or retrofitted capacity that is not retired.
6
Numbers in this table may not sum to numbers in Table A1 due to independent rounding and small classification
differences between the base and policy cases.
4

Reduction in Excess Reserves
IPM uses a target reserve margin in each region
7
as the basis for determining how much
capacity to keep operational in order to preserve resource adequacy. IPM retires capacity if it is
no longer needed to provide energy for load or to provide capacity to meet reserve margin during
the planning horizon of the projections. Since current regional reserves are generally higher than
the target reserve margin for the region, and increased energy efficiency will reduce the need for
reserves, IPM may retire reserve capacity in 2020 if it is not economic to use it to maintain
adequate reserve margins. Existing resources may also be more expensive, compared to
alternatives such as building new capacity or transferring capacity from another region. As a
result, many of the plants that are projected to retire in 2020 will not need to be replaced.
Table 1 above shows that operational capacity is reduced by approximately 3.5 percent
nationwide in 2020 under the policy.
8
The majority of this reduction is the result of decreases in
load; in 2020 summer peak loads are reduced by around 3 percent nationwide, or approximately
24 GW (see Table A1). At the projected reserve margins in 2020 of 19 percent in the base case,
these reductions reduce reserve capacity needs by around 28 GW, or about 80 percent of the
overall reduction in load of 35 GW shown in Table 1. Moreover, these reductions are from
energy efficiency that is available in all hours, not just at peak, so it can substitute for existing or
new baseload capacity. A reduction of 3.5 percent in 2020 will therefore have little overall
impact. Moreover, retirements are distributed throughout the power grid, so there will be only
small impacts at the regional level.
9
Excess regional reserves above the target margin can be
shared among sub-regions to ensure adequate reserve margins within a larger reliability region.
IPM permits these transfers of reserves, but limits their level to ensure the reliability of the bulk
power system. These interregional transfers are discussed further below.
Although there are substantial existing regional variations in reserve margin, IPM adjusts
regional capacities in 2020 to meet the specific target reserve margin in each region, through

7
Reserve margin targets are generally based on the NERC 2010 10 Year Assessments for the region, except in cases
where there are more stringent state requirements or other exceptions.
8
Regional data on operational capacity is shown in Table A1 of the Appendix.
9
See maps of IPM regions and NERC Assessment Regions, and the table of target and projected reserve margins in
the Appendix C. IPM regions are based on the regions NERC uses for regional assessments. These Assessment
Regions are used for the Appendix tables in this document.
5

changes in the level of retirements, construction of new generating capacity, or transfers of
capacity among regions to meet the specific reserve margin in each region. Each of these
adjustments in the 2020 projections is described below.
Changes in Retirements and New Capacity Additions in the Policy Case
10

Although there are significant retirements of 49 GW of coal and 16 GW of Oil-Gas
Steam plants in the policy case in 2020 compared to the base case, these are offset by 28 GW of
capacity from load reductions discussed above and by changes in new capacity additions.
Retiring coal units are generally older and smaller, and retiring oil/gas steam units are generally
older, less efficient and infrequently used units. Where needed for reserve margin, this retiring
capacity is replaced by 23 GW of Natural Gas Combined Cycle capacity, 2 GW of Combustion
Turbine capacity and 10 GW of wind capacity (See Table A5). This new capacity of 35 GW
amounts to approximately 4% of the current reserve capacity (See Table A2 for current summer
reserve capacity); adding this amount of capacity to replace retiring coal and oil/gas steam units
is unlikely to present resource adequacy concerns. Overall, combined generation from natural
gas and coal is projected to fall by less than 5 percent at the national level in 2020 in the policy
case compared to the base case; a shift this small in the total capacity of units capable of
providing ancillary services to the grid should be entirely manageable within the normal
parameters required for maintaining reliable operation. Although there can be local grid
reliability issues in replacing some units, these can be managed within the normal reliability
planning and management time frames provided by the flexible resource options and time frames
in the rule.
The distribution of these retirements and additions across NERC Assessment regions is
shown in Appendix C.
Reserve Transfers
In cases where it is economic to transfer reserves from a neighboring region, rather than
supply reserves from within a region, IPM will transfer reserves, subject to summer and winter

10
Retirement and additions in this section are all incremental to the base case in 2020; the GW values represent
model projections of responses to the imposition of the policy, not currently announced retirements or additions
that are currently planned or under construction.
6

limits that are designed to ensure that these reserves can be transferred reliably. The transfer of
reserves can occur, for example, if a region retires capacity that was used in the base case to meet
reserve requirements, but a neighboring region has lower cost reserves that are not needed for its
own reserve requirements. To examine these transfers, the EPA analyzed the change in net
transfers from each region, where the net transfer for the base and policy cases is measured by
the reserves sent to neighboring regions. In these cases, a positive value signifies the reserve
capacity sent to other regions is larger than the reserve capacity received from other regions
(sending and receiving regions can be different), while a negative value signifies that the
capacity received is larger than the capacity sent. Thus, the value measures the degree to which
resources in the region were reserved for use by other regions (positive value), or where the
capacity to meet load in the region was served by resources in other regions (negative value). In
each case these reserve transfers represent the use of the transmission system on a firm basis for
at least a season.
To look at the impact of the policy case on transfers, the measure used was the change in
the summer reserves sent in the policy case compared to the base case. To develop a relative
measure of the impact of the policy, the change in reserves was measured as a percentage of load
in the sending region. This percentage gives an indication of the significance of the policy for
changes in the grid. The results of this measurement are shown in Table A6. As the Table shows,
only three regions are at or above a 5%. The EPA believes changes below 5% are unlikely to
raise concerns over reliability; the three changes at or above 5% are discussed further below.
Using this measure, the largest change in reserves are in the Northeast in ISO-NE, and in
the Southeast in SERC-SE and FRCC. In ISO-NE the change in reserves is additional receipts of
1947 MW, increasing net reserves received from 938 MW to 2,885 MW. The majority of this
change resulted from a net decrease of 1261MW in the reserves sent from ISO-NE regions to
regions in the NYISO; the remainder resulted from a net increase in the reserves received from
Canada and from NYISO. In projecting these shifts, IPM is constraining flows within the transfer
limits between IPM regions, but also limiting the total flow between all the IPM regions in
NYISO (New York State) and ISO-NE (all the states in New England).
11
The modeling thus
considers both basic line limits and broader transmission system limits on overall flows. The

11
For details on these limits, see the IPM documentation.
7

shifts in grid transfers exhibited in the IPM modeling suggest overall grid adjustment that is
shared by these RTOs within manageable limits, and do not appear to be a cause for concern.
In the Southeast, the largest percentage change occurs in SERC-SE. In the base case,
SERC-SE sends a net 2,071 MW to other regions, while in the policy case it receives a net 2,092
MW from other regions. This change amounts to a shift of in increased receipts relative to the
base case of 4, 163 MW (8.3% of load in the base case). Although this shift is relatively large
compared to other regions, there is little change in the absolute magnitude of transfers that need
to be managed, since transfers shift from reserves sent to reserves received – in both cases the
transfer is around 2,000 MW. The shift to receipts corresponds to the other large shift in the
Southeast, as shift in FRCC from zero MW sent to 3,420 MW sent. All of these transfers are to
SERC-SE, the only region to which FRCC is connected. When the larger SERC region is
considered
12
, combining all the individual SERC regions, the shift as a percentage of load drops
to 4.8% of the total SERC load. These overall changes fall within the planning areas of SERC
and are related to the placement of new capacity; within this planning area the shifts of this
magnitude should be manageable.
Alternative Case: Option 1 (Regional)
As discussed above, the Option 1 (State) was chosen for the basic impact analysis
because it provides a stricter test of potential reliability impacts. The EPA also examined the
preferred Option 1 (Regional) case to identify differences with the State case and assess potential
impacts. Tables B1 through B5 in Appendix B present results that correspond to Option 1 (State)
Tables A1 through A5. As expected, both cases showed very similar patterns in total operating
and reserve capacity, since the IPM model must serve the same loads and ensure the same
reserve margins in each case. Total operating capacity differs by less than one percent and
regional operating capacities are within 5 percent except for MAPP.
13
Reserve capacity and
projected reserve margins for Option 1 (Regional) (Tables B2 and B3) follow a pattern similar to

12
This the entire SERC region, consisting of SERC-SE, SERC-N, SERC-E and SERC-W. See map in Appendix for
details.
13
MAPP has only 9 GW and the policy cases differ by 9.0 percent. An additional 848 MW of Wind capacity is
added in the regional scenario compared to the state scenario.
8

operating capacity: totals are within 1% of the projections for the corresponding outputs from
Option 1 (State) and regional reserve capacities are under 5 percent.
Differences between the cases develop in the types of capacity that are retired and in the
amount and types of new capacity built in2020. The Regional results show fewer incremental
retirements of coal capacity (46.1 GW compared to 49.0 GW) and in the total retired capacity
(68.4 GW compared to 70.6 GW). Retirements of Oil-Gas capacity remain essentially unchanged
between the two cases (16.3 GW) and other retirements are small (see Tables A4 and B4.) The
decrease in retired coal capacity of 2.8 GW are offset by a decrease in new combined cycle
capacity of the 2.1 GW. Overall, these results indicate a greater flexibility in the choice of which
units are used to serve capacity needs, a result that indicates general flexibility over capacity
choices. Managing these increases and decreases should raise no reliability issues. Retirements
of Oil/Gas Steam capacity remain unchanged between the options and no further reliability
issues arise in the regional case.
A similar indication of greater flexibility is seen in the transfers. The two cases with the
largest percentage shift examined above are reduced in magnitude. The shift in ISO-NE is
reduced from -7.7% to -5.4%, and the shift in SERC-SE is reduced from -8.3% to -6.7%.


9

Appendix A: Tables by IPM Region
Option 1 (State)
A1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020
A2. . Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020
A3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020
A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case in 2020
A5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020
A6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in 2020
10


A1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020(MW)

All Generation Sources Coal Only
Region Base Policy Change Base Policy
Basin (BASN) 14,163 12,864 -1,298 5,315 4,133
Desert Southwest (DSW) 42,191 39,847 -2,344 9,278 6,894
ERCOT 89,531 89,277 -255 19,052 10,734
FRCC 54,766 56,723 1,956 7,893 2,291
ISO-NE 30,239 28,533 -1,706 141 141
MAPP 9,176 9,090 -85 3,424 3,339
MISO 121,440 117,492 -3,948 50,983 45,646
Northern California (CALN) 32,878 31,092 -1,786 71 71
Northwest (NORW) 51,947 49,373 -2,574 2,354 2,354
NYISO 38,779 37,227 -1,552 443 594
PJM 180,193 175,676 -4,517 55,964 51,175
Rockies (Rock) 23,509 22,163 -1,346 10,584 9,239
SERC-E 52,311 52,086 -225 14,056 10,055
SERC-N 47,824 48,498 675 16,260 15,786
SERC-SE 60,084 55,023 -5,061 15,794 9,670
SERC-W 41,035 35,965 -5,069 6,909 3,224
Southern California (CALS) 43,004 40,920 -2,084 57 57
SPP 71,871 68,188 -3,683 23,704 17,877
Grand Total 1,004,942 970,037 -34,905 242,283 193,279

11


A2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020

Projected Reserve
Margins
Assessment Region
Peak
Demand
Base
Peak
Demand
Policy
Reserve
Capacity
Base
Reserve
Capacity
Policy
Basin (BASN) 11,893 11,487 13,739 12,935
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 34,249 32,675 39,549 37,086
ERCOT 72,034 70,790 81,938 80,523
FRCC 45,199 44,260 54,595 53,131
ISO-NE 25,142 24,040 28,913 27,646
MAPP 5,383 5,304 6,943 6,099
MISO 90,613 87,001 106,325 101,182
Northern California
(CALN) 22,308 21,295 28,451 26,667
Northwest (NORW) 25,442 24,350 40,590 37,994
NYISO 29,876 28,504 34,656 33,065
PJM 155,743 150,641 179,728 173,839
Rockies (Rock) 16,025 15,446 19,952 17,991
SERC-E 44,545 43,525 51,227 50,054
SERC-N 40,177 39,390 46,203 45,299
SERC-SE 50,246 49,465 57,783 56,885
SERC-W 29,834 29,514 37,940 33,941
Southern California
(CALS) 29,514 27,866 36,244 32,798
SPP 51,336 50,440 62,225 57,300
US Total 779,558 755,995 927,000 884,435

12


A3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020
Projected Reserve Margins
NERC Assessment
Region
Target
Reserve
Margin Base Case
Policy
Case
Policy %
Above
Margin
Policy
Change
from Base
Basin (BASN) 12.60% 15.52% 12.60% 0.0% -2.9%
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 13.50% 15.47% 13.50% 0.0% -2.0%
ERCOT 13.75% 13.75% 13.75% 0.0% 0.0%
FRCC 19.25% 20.79% 20.04% 0.8% -0.7%
ISO-NE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
MAPP 15.00% 28.99% 15.00% 0.0% -14.0%
MISO 16.30% 17.34% 16.30% 0.0% -1.0%
Northern California
(CALN) 14.71% 27.54% 25.23% 10.5% -2.3%
Northwest (NORW) 17.90% 35.58% 32.63% 14.7% -2.9%
NYISO 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 0.0% 0.0%
PJM 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 0.0% 0.0%
Rockies (Rock) 14.65% 24.51% 16.48% 1.8% -8.0%
SERC-E 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-N 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-SE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-W 15.00% 27.17% 15.00% 0.0% -12.2%
Southern California
(CALS) 15.14% 22.80% 17.70% 2.6% -5.1%
SPP 13.60% 21.21% 13.60% 0.0% -7.6%
Grand Total 15.29% 18.91% 16.99% 1.7% -1.9%

13


A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to the Base Case in 2020 (MW)


CC Coal CT NU
OG
Steam Total
Basin (BASN) 46 1,175 0 0 345 1,567
Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 2,392 0 0 0 2,392
ERCOT 0 8,358 0 0 0 8,358
FRCC 243 5,602 0 0 3,395 9,239
ISO-NE 1,029 0 0 0 2,671 3,700
MAPP 0 85 0 0 0 85
MISO 0 5,350 0 -261 0 5,089
Northern California (CALN) 209 0 1,592 0 0 1,800
Northwest (NORW) 1,885 0 690 0 0 2,574
NYISO 81 -151 0 0 1,656 1,586
PJM 0 4,622 0 0 0 4,622
Rockies (Rock) 0 1,349 0 0 0 1,349
SERC-E 0 4,004 0 0 0 4,004
SERC-N 0 468 0 0 0 468
SERC-SE 0 6,148 0 0 0 6,148
SERC-W -513 3,718 -7 0 4,417 7,615
Southern California (CALS) 766 0 54 0 1,493 2,313
SPP -292 5,874 0 0 2,154 7,737
Grand Total 3,455 48,996 2,328 -261 16,131 70,649

14


A5. New Capacity Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020
(MW)
Region CC CT Wind Other Total
Basin (BASN) 0 -8 4 271 267
Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 0 6 34 40
ERCOT 6,831 0 1,233 0 8,064
FRCC 11,196 0 0 -95 11,101
ISO-NE 99 -7 1,903 -33 1,961
MAPP 0 -110 0 0 -110
MISO 0 -65 1,161 -63 1,033
Northern California (CALN) 0 0 1 13 14
Northwest (NORW) -11 -17 0 -5 -33
NYISO 0 -14 -37 0 -52
PJM -912 -1,729 1,633 -295 -1,304
Rockies (Rock) -1,023 265 537 0 -221
SERC-E 2,242 -56 0 1,524 3,709
SERC-N 500 0 9 0 509
SERC-SE 1,062 0 0 0 1,062
SERC-W 2,512 -31 0 0 2,481
Southern California (CALS) 183 0 6 38 227
SPP 47 -283 3,961 -3 3,722
Grand Total 22,724 -2,056 10,416 1,385 32,470

15


A6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in Base and Policy
Scenarios in 2020 (MW)
NERC Assessment
Region Base Policy
Change from
Base to
Policy
Change as
Percent of
Summer Peak
Basin (BASN) -1,430 -1,926 -496 -4.2%
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 204 289 86 0.3%
ERCOT -1,942 -1,913 29 0.0%
FRCC 0 3,420 3,420 7.6%
ISO-NE -938 -2,885 -1,947 -7.7%
MISO 1,135 1,470 335 0.3%
Northern California
(CALN) 0 0 0 0.0%
Northwest (NORW) 309 330 21 0.1%
NYISO 1,397 1,295 -102 -0.3%
PJM -12,061 -11,872 189 0.1%
Rockies (Rock) 208 426 217 1.4%
SERC-E -256 -570 -314 -0.7%
SERC-N 807 2,379 1,572 3.9%
SERC-SE 2,071 -2,092 -4,163 -8.3%
SERC-W 3,011 1,928 -1,084 -3.6%
Southern California
(CALS) 251 1,622 1,371 4.6%
SPP 3,528 1,818 -1,709 -3.3%


16

Appendix B: Tables by IPM Region
Option 1 (Regional)
B1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020
B2. Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020
B3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020
B4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case in 2020
B5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020



17


B1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020(MW)

All Generation Sources Coal Only
Region Base Policy Change Base Policy Change
Basin (BASN) 14,163 13,467 -696 5,315 4,838 -478
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 42,191 41,810 -382 9,278 8,433 -845
ERCOT 89,531 88,511 -1,020 19,052 13,246 -5,806
FRCC 54,766 56,372 1,606 7,893 3,094 -4,799
ISO-NE 30,239 27,928 -2,311 141 141 0
MAPP 9,176 9,972 796 3,424 3,372 -52
MISO 121,440 115,908 -5,532 50,983 45,609 -5,374
Northern California
(CALN) 32,878 30,909 -1,969 71 17 -54
Northwest (NORW) 51,947 49,473 -2,474 2,354 2,354 0
NYISO 38,779 36,716 -2,063 443 55 -388
PJM 180,193 175,000 -5,193 55,964 50,082 -5,882
Rockies (Rock) 23,509 22,342 -1,167 10,584 9,889 -695
SERC-E 52,311 52,522 212 14,056 8,264 -5,792
SERC-N 47,824 48,516 692 16,260 15,119 -1,142
SERC-SE 60,084 55,797 -4,287 15,794 11,390 -4,404
SERC-W 41,035 35,710 -5,325 6,909 2,352 -4,557
Southern California
(CALS) 43,004 40,091 -2,913 57 57 0
SPP 71,871 69,754 -2,117 23,704 17,853 -5,851
Grand Total 1,004,942 970,799
-
34,143 242,283 196,164 -46,118

18


B2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020

Projected Reserve
Margins
Assessment Region
Peak
Demand
Base
Peak
Demand
Policy
Reserve
Capacity
Base
Reserve
Capacity
Policy
Basin (BASN) 11,893 11,487 13,739 12,935
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 34,249 32,675 39,549 37,765
ERCOT 72,034 70,790 81,938 80,523
FRCC 45,199 44,260 54,595 52,781
ISO-NE 25,142 24,040 28,913 27,646
MAPP 5,383 5,304 6,943 6,099
MISO 90,613 87,001 106,325 101,182
Northern California
(CALN) 22,308 21,295 28,451 25,654
Northwest (NORW) 25,442 24,350 40,590 37,962
NYISO 29,876 28,504 34,656 33,065
PJM 155,743 150,641 179,728 173,839
Rockies (Rock) 16,025 15,446 19,952 18,722
SERC-E 44,545 43,525 51,227 50,054
SERC-N 40,177 39,390 46,203 45,299
SERC-SE 50,246 49,465 57,783 56,885
SERC-W 29,834 29,514 37,940 33,941
Southern California
(CALS) 29,514 27,866 36,244 33,752
SPP 51,336 50,440 62,225 57,300
US Total 779,558 755,995 927,000 885,404

19


B3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020
Projected Reserve Margins
NERC Assessment
Region
Target
Reserve
Margin Base Case
Policy
Case
Policy %
Above
Margin
Policy
Change
from Base
Basin (BASN) 12.60% 15.52% 12.60% 0.0% -2.9%
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 13.50% 15.47% 15.58% 2.1% 0.1%
ERCOT 13.75% 13.75% 13.75% 0.0% 0.0%
FRCC 19.25% 20.79% 19.25% 0.0% -1.5%
ISO-NE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
MAPP 15.00% 28.99% 15.00% 0.0% -14.0%
MISO 16.30% 17.34% 16.30% 0.0% -1.0%
Northern California
(CALN) 14.71% 27.54% 20.47% 5.8% -7.1%
Northwest (NORW) 17.90% 35.58% 32.57% 14.7% -3.0%
NYISO 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 0.0% 0.0%
PJM 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 0.0% 0.0%
Rockies (Rock) 14.65% 24.51% 21.21% 6.6% -3.3%
SERC-E 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-N 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-SE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%
SERC-W 15.00% 27.17% 15.00% 0.0% -12.2%
Southern California
(CALS) 15.14% 22.80% 21.12% 6.0% -1.7%
SPP 13.60% 21.21% 13.60% 0.0% -7.6%
Grand Total 15.29% 18.91% 17.12% 1.8% -1.8%

20


B4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to the Base Case in 2020
(MW)

CC Coal CT NU
OG
Steam Total
Basin (BASN) 104 479 0 0 244 827
Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 848 0 0 0 848
ERCOT 0 5,832 0 0 0 5,832
FRCC 135 4,799 0 0 2,248 7,182
ISO-NE 621 0 0 0 2,100 2,722
MAPP 0 52 0 0 0 52
MISO 21 5,405 0 -70 384 5,740
Northern California
(CALN) 697 54 1,291 0 0 2,042
Northwest (NORW) 2,071 0 690 0 0 2,761
NYISO 254 388 0 0 1,903 2,545
PJM 0 5,730 0 0 0 5,730
Rockies (Rock) 0 696 0 0 0 696
SERC-E 0 5,796 0 0 0 5,796
SERC-N 0 1,145 0 0 0 1,145
SERC-SE 0 4,428 0 0 0 4,428
SERC-W -513 4,596 -7 0 4,036 8,112
Southern California
(CALS) 963 0 -32 0 3,109 4,041
SPP -292 5,906 0 0 2,243 7,857
Grand Total 4,062 46,152 1,941 -70 16,268 68,353

21


B5. New Capacity Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020
(MW)
Region CC CT Wind Other Total
Basin (BASN) 0 -8 0 130 122
Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 0 277 186 463
ERCOT 4,661 0 125 0 4,786
FRCC 8,788 0 0 -95 8,693
ISO-NE 0 -7 418 -33 377
MAPP 0 -110 848 0 738
MISO 0 -65 199 -52 82
Northern California
(CALN) 0 0 30 42 73
Northwest (NORW) -11 -17 162 119 254
NYISO 357 -14 53 0 396
PJM -677
-
1,729 1,832 -313 -887
Rockies (Rock) -1,210 370 147 0 -693
SERC-E 4,387 -56 0 1,606 5,937
SERC-N 1,183 0 11 0 1,194
SERC-SE 117 0 0 0 117
SERC-W 2,749 -31 0 0 2,717
Southern California
(CALS) 263 0 812 52 1,126
SPP 171 -283 5,515 -3 5,401
Grand Total 20,777
-
1,951 10,430 1,638 30,894

22


B6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in Base and Policy
Scenarios in 2020 (MW)
NERC Assessment
Region Base Policy
Change from
Base to
Policy
Change as
Percent of
Summer Peak
Basin (BASN) -1,430 -1,316 114 1.0%
Desert Southwest
(DSW) 204 1,388 1,185 3.5%
ERCOT -1,942 -1,658 284 0.4%
FRCC 0 3,420 3,420 7.6%
ISO-NE -938 -2,305 -1,367 -5.4%
MISO 1,135 558 -577 -0.6%
Northern California
(CALN) 0 808 808 3.6%
Northwest (NORW) 309 345 36 0.1%
NYISO 1,397 752 -645 -2.2%
PJM -12,061 -12,723 -662 -0.4%
Rockies (Rock) 208 163 -46 -0.3%
SERC-E -256 -192 64 0.1%
SERC-N 807 2,395 1,589 4.0%
SERC-SE 2,071 -1,318 -3,389 -6.7%
SERC-W 3,011 1,681 -1,330 -4.5%
Southern California
(CALS) 251 -785 -1,036 -3.5%
SPP 3,528 2,238 -1,290 -2.5%


23

Appendix C: Maps
C1. IPM Regions
C2. NERC Assessment Regions

24

C1: IPM v5.13 Regions


25


C2: NERC Assessment Areas in Long Term Reliability Assessment.

Source: NERC 2012 Long Term Reliability Assessment

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful